New FDR Decode

reply to post by trebor451


Yes I'm serious.

You saw the "Smoke trail" in the DOD video?

Are you telling me a data acquistion system cannot record events that
produce smoke coming from an jet engine?





Nice try "Trebor".

It's logic like this that answers the question why you, or none of your
"friends" will debate me live, nor more seasoned aviation pros.

You did read the link to the runway info and reason why John's interpretation
of PA is incorrect?

Are you going to let these facts slide like the others I've mentioned?

[edit on 29-10-2009 by turbofan]

Originally posted by turbofan

Yes I'm serious.

I know that, based on the other aspects of this whole thing that you people are "serious" about. The problem is your "serious" is what most everyone else sees is ridiculous (need I go into Camp Springs 1? "Morning rush hour traffic into KDCA? Flying in or near to P-56? SAM missiles at the Pentagon? Wings ripping off Boeing airliners at 450 kts?).

You saw the "Smoke trail" in the DOD video?

Are you telling me that you know what made that smoke trail and that whatever it was that caused it should be recorded in the flight data?

Are you telling me a data acquistion system cannot record events that produce smoke coming from an jet engine?

I'll ask again. What caused that smoke trail? If you cannot answer that, you are just yakking out your PfT grommet again, making up crap. Since you people believe the wings should have ripped off the aircraft by that point, I'm surprised you are even in this conversation. What did cause that smoke trail? Condensation? Broken oil line? Ruptured hydraulic line? What was the time-to-impact from that particular point in the picture? Roughly 500 feet from the impact point? Roughly .66 seconds until impact at 770 feet per second? Enough time to record such info? You tell me, Wiley.

It's logic like this that answers the question why you, or none of your
"friends" will debate me live, nor more seasoned aviation pros.

People have no interest in "debating" you because you can't even answer the most basic of these events, choosing to ignore them instead.

People have no interest in debating you because your level of credibility, especially with the "seasoned veterans" you have, is absurdly hilarious. Any group of "aviators" who say they could not crash a 767 dead on into a 1,000' skyscraper at 450 knots are fools and extremely poor pilots - I can tell you that much.

Events such as the aforementioned Camp Springs 1 departure or the "Morning rush hour traffic into KDCA" or the flying in or near to P-56 or the SAM missiles at the Pentagon or the wings ripping off Boeing airliners at 45 kts. The positions you people seem to take great enjoyment at erecting and defending are really some of the most indefensible things I have ever seen.

The fact that nobody wants to "debate" you is because you are a group of immature children who are not worth spending any serious time on. Do YOU even know what the Camp Springs 1 departure is? Have YOU talked to the controllers/flight planners at Andrews about when that departure is assigned? Do YOU have any clue what the altitude differential is between aircraft on the CS 1 departure and aircraft headed into KDCA on a southern ILS approach at the KDCA 187/2.5 point and the corresponding KADW 270/8? Do YOU have any clue what the regulations are even flying *close* to Prohibited Area 56? Do YOU have any clue *whatsoever* about SAM missiles at the Pentagon being "stood down" on or about 9/11? Do YOU have any clue whatsoever what the design and construction tolerances are and the excessive design specs built into Boeing airliners with regards to their ability to fly at 450 kts at 1,000 feet without their wings ripping off?

The problem about "debate", TF, is that you people think way to highly of yourselves. You are not a) that important nor b) that schooled in these issues. You are like an aeronautical Levi Johnson - dying to have your 15-minutes of fame, and even wanting to go as far as posing for Playgirl to "prove" your manliness; or an aerial Paris Hilton - wanting to be popular for no other treason than to be popular. You do succeed, however, at reminding everyone about your serious case of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Get over it, dude. He's been gone almost a year now.

You did read the link to the runway info and reason why John's interpretation of PA is incorrect?

I did read that you keep posting what are the FAA and manufacture acceptable standards. What I have not seen you acknowledge (and don't expect you to acknowledge) is that those standards are valid only when operating within the equipment's acceptable and designed operating ranges. In other words, exceed the manufacturer's or FAA operating ranges and who knows what data you'll get.

In other words, as I read in an aviation safety magazine a number of years ago, any pilot who flies in icing conditions becomes an instantaneous test pilot, flying a never-before-designed-nor-flown airframe and/or wing design. Conversely, any pilot who operates his aircraft outside of designed parameters becomes an instantaneous test pilot, and as such should expect the possibility of abnormal or non-standard reports or readings from equipment designed to operate at lower speeds or levels of use.

How fast were these aircraft going again and at what altitude? Oh that's right...the wings should have ripped off.

reply to post by turbofan


It's already well established that you aren't a pilot. But, you sit and learn, maybe you're finally getting better.

ReHeat and WeedWacker did not pick up no these mistakes?
....or perhaps they are not pilots?/

See? Another one of your ad homs.

The fact that you can't understand when actual pilots explain things to you isn't our fault. ALL you know is from reading...an "armchair" pilot, if you will. Perhaps you have flight simulator on your computer, too...

'reheat' is ex-military, fighters. I'm civilian.

We each have different backgrounds, but can fly rings around you.

On another post, regarding whether or not the right engine ingested FOD and began to smoke just before impact...are you sure it was a DoD video that alleged that? I see one that was made by a computer geek...maybe FOR the DoD, of that I have no knowledge.

But, in any event....IF the right engine ingested FOD bad enough to cause a smoke trail, then LOOK for the #2 engine data parameters...surely you can do that? I really can't be bothered...but if you see someting, then why not show it? Does it destroy the "fly-over" hypothesis? Is that why you don't want to mention it?

Check N1, N2, EGT oil pressure and especially (this is the biggie) vibration level.

Check the right hydraulic system, does it show any abnormalities, pressure fluctuation?

Did the #2 generator trip off the Bus? Look at the electrical system data...IF the engine-driven Gen tripped off, then the cross-tie breaker will close to pick up the Gen Bus. It will be in the FDR data files.

YOU have all of this at your fingertips...I don't have the program to open these (nor can I care to, atm).

SO, it's all up to you, young Padawan!



[edit on 29 October 2009 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by trebor451


Yes, Trebor. I hate replying to your circular questions because you are
so non-technical you don't see the obvious and continue to ask the same
things over and over and over and over...again.

The engine would have created the "smoke trail". What else could have?

My freakin' car alarm can sense a tennis ball and sound a warning tone
based on simple inductive electronics; so what makes you think a 250+
pound pole struck at 462 knots wouldn't register in the FDR using complex
sensors?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
See? Another one of your ad homs.

Ad hom? It's the truth! Why didn't you, or Reheat pick up the PA error
made by John Famer? YOur reply came afterward, yet you both failed
to highlight the incorrect response?

Did you read the correction made on the P4T forum? Do you agree with
that, or are you STILL going to stick by Farmer's explanation?

On another post, regarding whether or not the right engine ingested FOD and began to smoke just before impact...are you sure it was a DoD video that alleged that? I see one that was made by a computer geek...maybe FOR the DoD, of that I have no knowledge.

Well let's see...

There's the DOD video that everyone claims to have a white smoke trail
from the aircraft.

Then there's the Intergrated Consultants video that shows the engine
smoke trail. Remember those guys?

Let's see if I can find a picture...Well 'golly gee wow'!!! I found it!



So, once you guys get your story straight let me know so we can continue
this debate

reply to post by turbofan

...what makes you think a 250+ pound pole struck at 462 knots wouldn't register in the FDR using complex sensors?

I'm sorry?

Did I read that correctly?

Because your automobile car alarm can detect a tennis ball, you think that is the SAME as the SSFDR on a Boeing? Honest?


Please tell us just which particular type of "sensor" would accomplish such a feat. Describe, please, in detail its normal function, and why hitting a light pole would affect it in any way.

Feel free to use data sets from OTHER crashes in your investigation, for comparison.

Take into account the time span involved, as well....from light pole impact until Pentagon impact. Think carefully, here....look at the distances, and speeds involved. the hilarity of this suggestion should start to become clear.

reply to post by turbofan


John Farmer....but I thought it was someone named Mike Wilson who actually made that video???

OTHERS may have used it, as an illustration of what MIGHT have happened...personally, I'm not convinced on that "smoking engine" concept, and definitely see something wrong with the approach path of the airplane in that video, as well...it actually has done more harm than good, BECAUSE it gets the "Where are the gouges in the lawn?" crowd all riled
up....


Here, this is where it must have stemmed:

www.mikejwilson.com...

Originally posted by turbofan
My freakin' car alarm can sense a tennis ball and sound a warning tone
based on simple inductive electronics; so what makes you think a 250+
pound pole struck at 462 knots wouldn't register in the FDR using complex
sensors?

Please, Turbofan. tell all of us what "complex sensor" is mounted in the wing leading edge or the cowling of an engine that would register the impact of the 100 ton aircraft against a 250 lb lamp pole designed to be toppled by a 1,800 lb car?

What are these "complex" sensors that are mounted in the leading edge of the wing?

And equating a tennis ball against your car with a 100+ ton aircraft traveling at 770 feet per second against a 250 lb lamp pole? THAT is why your PfT club is laughed at, TF. It is all self inflicted.

[edit on 29-10-2009 by trebor451]

reply to post by turbofan

Ad hom?

Yes. When confronted with the knowledge of actual pilots who disagree with the cult of P4T, last resort is the ad hom. Perhaps I misunderstand the definintion, but a snarky comment "IF they are really pilots" should qualify.

Our qualifications have been more than demonstrated by our posts. And, there are other verifications.

I have refrained, personally, from questioning the flying abiliites of some of the P4T folks...I have flown with a lot of pilots who managed to achieve certain ratings and licenses...doesn't mean I think very much of some of them, in terms of their judgement.

Why didn't you, or Reheat pick up the PA error
made by John Famer?

Because I don't need to eat, breathe, sleep and sit on the toilet of this nonsense 24/7.

Ask 'reheat' now...bet it's about the same answer.

I had already concluded that the P4T, with a biased desire for a particular outcome, had skewed or otherwise ignored certain "inconvenient truths" as they came across them, IF it foiled their pet beleifs.

Why didn't YOU catch these "inconsistencies"? Don't wanna see 'em, perhaps?

That might be the problem with being TOO close to a situation.....


I've aready contributed a comment about how the lateral track data can't be as exact and accurate as the P4T group claim. I challenged the DME data, and that was brushed aside because I think I hit too close to home, there.

ALL of it shows, on the part of the P4T crowd, a severe lack of understanding in many cases of HOW the B757 and B767 and the avionics actually work, and a disiclination to accept anything that is contrary to their "conspiracy" mindset.

That is not "investigating"...it is preaching to their accolytes and sycophants.

reply to post by turbofan


So Google Earth is good for you when you use it, bad for me if I use it? Whatever the actual elevation, the PA gave it at 100+ at landing and 40 something at takeoff. So which is it? 40 something or 100+? Let's pick and choose whichever we want, so don't go saying I made a PA error, because the readings are in the Warren decode.

I stand by my assertion. The PA is too unpredictible and inaccurate for these purposes.

reply to post by 911files


There is another unknown re: the PA.

The static ports.

Where to install the static ports is always a bit of a compromise -- they must be somewhere so as to provide the best reading of ambient air pressure. The locations are designed based on the normal expected operating envelope of the airplane.

It would be interesting to study IF the excessive airspeed at or near SL resulted in affecting the reading the static ports were getting.

I'm postulating specifically a slight 'venturi effect' -- which would result in the altimeters reading slightly lower pressure, and thus slightly higher altitudes.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I'm sorry?

Did I read that correctly?

Yes, you read it correctly! But...no, you didn't get the point!

Because your automobile car alarm can detect a tennis ball, you think that is the SAME as the SSFDR on a Boeing? Honest?

No. Read again.

Because a simple inductive, 'cheapo' impact sensor on a $400.00 car alarm
can detect a bump as soft as a tennis ball, a more complex and sensitive
avionics system can record a 250+ pound light pole impacted by a 462+ knot 757 jet wing/engine!

Please tell us just which particular type of "sensor" would accomplish such a feat. Describe, please, in detail its normal function, and why hitting a light pole would affect it in any way.

Impact sensing would include accelerometers no doubt. I read something
about Bleed Air Ducts, however I'd have to look into that further.

Engine smoke would be picked up by Air/Fuel ratio sensors, fuel and/or
oil pressure sensors, turbine RPM sensors ...ummm...what else...

If you want to discuss accelerometer, Lambda, and pressure sensors
in detail, please start another thread and I'd be happy to explain how
these sensors produce electric signals and pass them on a wire.

If you're lucky, I might hook up my accelerometer to the car and show
you how a little push on the bumper by hand can record a value!

Take into account the time span involved, as well....from light pole
impact until Pentagon impact. Think carefully, here....look at the
distances, and speeds involved. the hilarity of this suggestion should
start to become clear.

No need to think too much for this one! Light poles were about 980 feet
from "impact"? Geez, I wish I had the data in front of me right now,
so don't quote this distance please.

Data gets clocked in 1, 2, and 8 times per second depending on which
sensor referred to listed above.

Plane was moving 781 feet per second.

Lots of time for the 2 Hz and 8 Hz pollled parameters to record!
Even at least one chance for the 1 Hz polled sensors!

Originally posted by 911files
reply to post by turbofan

 

So Google Earth is good for you when you use it, bad for me if I use it? Whatever the actual elevation, the PA gave it at 100+ at landing and 40 something at takeoff. So which is it? 40 something or 100+? Let's pick and choose whichever we want, so don't go saying I made a PA error, because the readings are in the Warren decode.

I stand by my assertion. The PA is too unpredictible and inaccurate for these purposes.

I don't use Google Earth for forensics; I use it for approximate measurements.

As for your PA junk, here's the thread link AGAIN so you and your pilot
friends can understand how it works and how incorrect your assessment
and interpretation of the FDR really is:

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Here is the text for those who do not wish to click the link:

PA is based on Pressure and is the height above (or below) the standard datum plane as represented by 29.92. PA changes with local pressure changes. Since there is an 80 foot difference and the local pressure on take off at IAD was 30.20, its clear the pressure the night before was somewhere around 30.12/13. You can check this in the Baro Cor column for that flight, i'm sure its close. Again, I haven't had a chance to look at it, nor will i waste too much time on this.

0.08 inHg represents roughly 80 feet.

In other words, if the local pressure at IAD was 29.92 the night before, the PA in the FDR column would read roughly 300 feet, while at take off, it would still show 41 when the local pressure changed overnight to 30.20.

So, the question asked, "Which is more accurate.. .the 41 feet at take off, or the 120 on landing?"

Answer - Both. They both show the same True Altitude when corrected for local pressure. See the altimeter simulator i posted in this thread.

You would think those who claim to be pilots on the GL side would know this. This is basic student pilot knowledge.

Once again John, you know nothing about interpreting the PA in the
flght data, and obviously nothing about how pilots use this feature.

Originally posted by trebor451Please, Turbofan. tell all of us what "complex sensor" is mounted in the wing leading edge or the cowling of an engine that would register the impact of the 100 ton aircraft against a 250 lb lamp pole designed to be toppled by a 1,800 lb car?

Who says the sensors need to be on th eleading wing edge, or engine
cowling?



See my reply to WWacker above.

Originally posted by turbofan
Who says the sensors need to be on th eleading wing edge, or engine
cowling?

If you and your boss over at PfT believe that a 757 FDR sensor system, as it is mounted and wired as is in a stock production 757, will recognize and and record the impact of 5 lamp poles in the configuration and environment of 9/11 at the Pentagon, that box of hammers is looking smarter and smarter than you boys every minute.

BUT....keep on keepin' on! We'll just add this to the list of items and events you have no clue about and don't wish to talk about here.

Can't wait for The Trials so we can finally ask you some questions....in our defense, of course.

reply to post by turbofan


No turbo, once again you duck the issue at hand. You dance around evading the fact that at the same location, the fdr records the same PA as two different values almost 80 feet different from one another at two different times. You have spoken much and said nothing to address the issue at hand.

ETA: By the way, I double checked the elevations using USGS. Nothing wrong with the GE elevations unless you are saying USGS is wrong.

Also, pressure at IAD was 30.12 on 9/10/2001 and 30.19 on 9/11/2001. So yes, it could be a significant factor if the pressure was significantly different, but it was not. Also, the runway is below 300 feet elevation. Once again, a highly variable and inaccurate measurement for these purposes.
[edit on 29-10-2009 by 911files]

[edit on 29-10-2009 by 911files]

Originally posted by 911files
No turbo, once again you duck the issue at hand. You dance around evading the fact that at the same location, the fdr records the same PA as two different values almost 80 feet different from one another at two different times. You have spoken much and said nothing to address the issue at hand.

Danced around? I asked you to post the date of Flight #11 and the local
weather for that time of day.

Have you supplied it?

Do you read the link at P4T that explains your error yet, or will you continue
to repeat your nonsense?

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by turbofan
Who says the sensors need to be on th eleading wing edge, or engine
cowling?

If you and your boss over at PfT believe that a 757 FDR sensor system, as it is mounted and wired as is in a stock production 757, will recognize and and record the impact of 5 lamp poles in the configuration and environment of 9/11 at the Pentagon, that box of hammers is looking smarter and smarter than you boys every minute.

BUT....keep on keepin' on! We'll just add this to the list of items and events you have no clue about and don't wish to talk about here.

Can't wait for The Trials so we can finally ask you some questions....in our defense, of course.

Box of hammers huh?

You do realize that the FDR records accelerometer data down to three
decimal places?

Let's see if you're smarter than a box of hammers:

How sensitive is the accelerometer system in "AA77" if it can sense
changes down to 0.001 g?

FYI: Trebor thinks that this system can't 'feel' a pole strike, yet it can
sense forward accel/decel down to 0.0321740486 feet per sec ^2.

The accel info while the plane is sitting still on the runway is changing
probably due to the slight winds hitting the fuselage, and wings...
but NAAAAAAAAAA, Treb says a light pole strike at 462 knots wont register!



[edit on 29-10-2009 by turbofan]

reply to post by weedwhacker


Wacker, I am no expert on PA measurement systems, but I do know that they operate on barometric pressure. My old geography professor Dr. Dubay back in college had us build a simple barometric instrument for his class so that we understood how such devices worked. What I have been trying to get turbo to see is that PA is based on atmospheric pressure. Pressure is not only impacted by local barometric pressure, but also the flow of air around the plane. If the PA can range so wildly under static conditions on the runway of an airport at different times due to local pressure variations, then imagine the impact of an almost 500 knot airflow over the measurement system.

The point is, although the PA varies with a degree of uncertainty under the best of circumstances, the RA (radio altitude) remains stable. For anyone to build a house of cards on something so unstable as PA is rather foolish. But I guess that point escapes some folks.

Originally posted by turbofan

Originally posted by 911files
No turbo, once again you duck the issue at hand. You dance around evading the fact that at the same location, the fdr records the same PA as two different values almost 80 feet different from one another at two different times. You have spoken much and said nothing to address the issue at hand.

Danced around? I asked you to post the date of Flight #11 and the local
weather for that time of day.

Have you supplied it?

Do you read the link at P4T that explains your error yet, or will you continue
to repeat your nonsense?

No turbo, you can go run the data for yourself just like I did using Warren's program. No, I am not going to read the trash at P4T, because I have found very few people have a clue what they are talking about. If I have a question regarding anything to do aviation, I ask the half-dozen or so that I know personally, not some stranger on an internet forum.

What you seem to be missing is the central issue, the variability of PA and degree of uncertainty resulting from changes in atmospheric pressure. Local barometric pressure is ONE such factor, but there can be many more. However, although the PA fluctuates (and accuracy) fluctuates with a degree of uncertainty, RA does not. Sitting on the runway or at the gate, it is very stable for ALL four measurement instruments. So comparatively speaking, RA for a plane traveling at almost 500 knots is undergoing atmospheric conditions at the mesurement instrument which would be exremely difficult to quantify. Radio waves are not impacted by such variables (except perhaps a degree of doppler shift which would be an extremely small fraction of a radio wave velocity).

PA is far too inaccurate under these conditions to be used in the manner you guys are trying to exploit it, while ignoring the stable and much more reliable RA data.